ckaihatsu wrote:And yet, *all* consumer goods / utilities / use-values, *and* production goods, land, and labor are all subject to *pricing* (exchange values), under capitalism.
Because unlike socialists, capitalists understand that the market is a vastly more accurate and efficient information processing system than politically appointed commissars.
Do you *really* disagree with such 'prices', due to capitalism, or are you just putting out a public-relations-type *press release* -- ?
Price just shows where quantity supplied equals quantity demanded. Disagreeing with prices is as childish as disagreeing with the calculator that shows your checking account is overdrawn: the calculator is not the problem.
Meaning what, exactly -- ?
Meaning that your anti-economic drivel has been tried, and it has always failed as spectacularly as doing away with the farmer and letting the animals run the farm would.
My politics are for *workers power*,
But in fact, your intention is to be the one who actually
has the power, which you will claim to exercise on the workers' behalf.
and certainly the workers themselves don't need any formal 'institution', not even their own, for knowledge on how to run the very workplace that they've been working at
Yes they do. They haven't the slightest idea how to run it any more than you do, or any more than the draft animals who pull the plow and the chickens who lay the eggs know how to run a farm. Do you really think construction workers know what to do on the job site without any architects or engineers to tell them? REALLY??? That is as absurd as your claim that assembly line workers know how to run the factory. You are merely proving that you have never actually worked at such a job: if you had, you would know better.
-- and certainly moreso than the absentee-employer.
Garbage. It is the employer's decisions, initiative and labor that made the production system exist rather than not exist, and operate productively rather than sit idle and decay.
Recall that we *agree* on what the *non-productive* sectors of the political economy are
No we don't. You think the entrepreneur who creates the production system and the factory owner who provides the building, machinery, etc. are non-productive.
-- the bourgeois government (overhead / bureaucracy), and all rentier-type values, particularly land.
If you think government is non-productive, try no government. And it is not land that has no value, it is the landowner.
These two 'sectors' of the capitalist economy could be eliminated overnight and it wouldn't directly impact on the ability of workers to run their workplaces.
Right, because the workers' ability to run their workplaces would still be zero.
It's *not* nonsense
It is most definitely nonsense.
-- the social conventions, inherited from past historical developments by default,
No, the institutional arrangements that have been found necessary to effect the desired outcome: relief of scarcity.
are to try to 'valuate' the work-product contribution, from wage labor, *regardless* of what all workers have *produced* for society in total.
Right: each individual worker is being paid for what HE does, not what all the other workers have done, because
they were already paid for
their contributions, just as he is being paid for his. You are trying to put over the bizarre notion that each worker should also be paid for what all the other workers have done throughout history. It's just transparent idiocy.
This is sheerly *economic gatekeeping*, meaning capitalist *overproduction* and leaving cities' worth of vehicles (or whatever) to bake in the sun instead of actually put into people's hands, for actual usage.
See? You refuse to know what is right in front of your face. What do you think happens if you give away the vehicles a factory owner has produced to people who want one? Do you think the recipients of the free vehicles are going to want to pay for production of the next lot of vehicles? And when those don't sell because you gave away the previous lot to the people who were in the market for a vehicle, are you going to give away the next lot, too? How long do you think a factory can operate that way? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: the workers will somehow keep the factory humming despite having no revenue to pay for supplies, power, etc.
Give your head a shake. Seriously. It's time.
Your politics would rather uphold *artifical scarcity*, than to make social use of that which exists, for people who *need* that which has been produced.
There is nothing artificial about the fact that production has to be paid for, and the most appropriate people to pay for it are those who consume it.
'Injustice' for *who* -- ?
For the producers. You want the productive to be systematically robbed of the fruits of their labor.
For *capitalist valuations* -- that are already *tanking*, as we speak -- ?
You are trying to change the subject again. You often do that when you realize you have been proved wrong.
You want to *couple* equity valuations to everything that's been produced, regardless of social-legitimacy
People owning what they produce is socially legitimate.
or pricing volatility, even to where stuff just *rots away in the sun* instead of being made available for actual unmet social needs.
I want those who produce to own what they produce, because that is the path not only to accurate incentives and allocative efficiency, but to
justice.
It's *still* thinking that whatever happened in the past automatically *condemns* us to the identical fate as before.
How many times does history have to prove you wrong -- how many more millions do you have to murder -- before you will become willing to consider the possibility that you actually
are wrong?
Remember, the *actual history* of 'socialism' (loosely), is one of international imperialist *invasion*, so anyone could readily say that socialism has been *stunted* historically, from without.
That is utter garbage with no basis in fact. The socialist USSR was doing a fine job of invading and annexing its neighbors and slaughtering its own citizens long before the Nazis invaded it. There was no international invasion of socialist China. Quite the contrary: socialist China invaded Korea, Tibet (which it conquered and annexed), and even fellow socialist Vietnam. The horrors of the Great Leap Forward (in which the workers' incompetence wrecked the nation's industrial base) and the Cultural Revolution speak for themselves. The botched "invasion" of Cuba was so insignificant it can be dismissed.
How is a circulating cash-based economy supposed to circulate cash when virtually *all valuations* are economically with *capital ownership* since the number of actual wage workers, receiving wages, has shrunk down to *trifling* numbers -- ?
By compensating everyone justly for the removal of their rights to liberty by exclusive land tenure. The more those rights are worth -- i.e., the greater the unimproved rental value of the land -- the greater the necessary compensation.
Extending the scenario to one of *full* automation, how is *anyone* to be able to *purchase* anything off the assembly line when *no one* is afforded employment, or wages / money, due to *full automation* -- ?
The Anti-Economist Marx to the contrary, employment was never the problem.
Scarcity has always been the problem. With full automation in a geoist economy, scarcity is abolished and everyone has enough to live well on by being justly compensated for the removal of their rights to liberty by exclusive land tenure. Socialism can never produce abundance because its basic tenet is to hate, rob and kill the producers.